# CHAPTER 45 — It Is a Bad Example Not to Observe a Law that Has Been Passed, Especially on the Part of Its Author; and It Is Extremely Harmful to the Ruler of a City to Open New Wounds Every Day

When the agreement had been made to return Rome to its ancient form of government, Virginius summoned Appius to appear before the people to argue his case. He appeared, accompanied by many noblemen, and Virginius ordered him to be imprisoned. Appius then began to cry out and appeal to the people; Virginius stated that he was not worthy of having that same right of appeal that he himself had destroyed or to have as his defender the people he had harmed. Appius replied that they should not violate the right of appeal which they had so eagerly established. He was, however, imprisoned, and before the day of his trial he killed himself. Although the wicked life of Appius deserves the highest punishment, it was nevertheless very heedless of civic affairs to violate the laws, especially one they had just passed. I do not believe there is any worse example in a republic than to make a law and then not to observe it, and even more so when it is not observed by the person who made it.

After 1494 * Florence reorganized its government with the assistance of Brother Girolamo Savonarola, whose writings demonstrate the learning, prudence, and the excellence of his mind, and among other provisions he had enacted to protect the citizens was a law allowing an appeal to the people from the sentences imposed in crimes against the state by the Eight and the Signoria (a law he had long argued for and obtained with the greatest difficulty); it happened that shortly after its approval, five citizens * were condemned to death by the Signoria on behalf of the state, and when these men wanted to make their appeal they were not allowed to do so, and the law was not observed. This diminished the friar’s reputation more than any other incident, for if the right of appeal was useful, it should have been observed, and if it was not useful, he should not have caused it to be passed successfully. This incident was remarked upon all the more because in so many of the sermons that the friar delivered after this law had been broken, he never either condemned those who had broken it or excused them—like a man who was unwilling to condemn something that he wanted, as if it were something that turned out to suit his purposes, but who was likewise unable to excuse it. This incident, revealing the friar’s ambitious and partisan nature, deprived him of his reputation and brought him much blame.

A government also does damage when on a daily basis it renews the resentment of your citizens through fresh injuries done to one person or another, as occurred in Rome after the decemvirate, for all the decemvirs and other citizens at various times had been accused and condemned, so that a dreadful fear arose among all of the nobility, who thought such condemnations would never end until the entire nobility had been destroyed. This would have generated a great deal of trouble within the city if the tribune Marcus Duellius had not done something about it; he issued an edict * that for one year it would be unlawful for anyone to cite or to accuse any Roman citizen, and this reassured the entire nobility. This demonstrates how harmful it is to a republic or a prince to keep the minds of the citizens anxious and fearful with the threat of continuous offences and punishments. Without a doubt, no one could hold to a more pernicious course, because men who begin to suspect they are about to suffer some evil protect themselves in every possible way from such dangers and become more daring and less cautious in attempting something new. Thus, it is necessary either never to injure anyone or else to inflict the injuries all at once and later on to reassure men and to give them reason to calm down and to quiet their minds.